I wouldn’t exactly say it’s underestimated but it’s seldom discussed how integral the fullback position is to specific teams attacks. If you’ve ever played 10 then you’ll know how important your 15 is to bringing out the best in both you and your team’s attack.
Seen as little more than the last line of defence, when we talk attacking 15’s people naturally gravitate to looking at kick returns or acting as a 2nd distributor role but it’s much more than that. Regardless of whether you have a 15 that can distribute as a second playmaker, or an exceptional strike runner, a good attacking game plan should utilise what they bring pitch.
They are essentially the eyes and ears of the attack, the depth a 15 is afforded gives them the benefit of vision, space and time. They have a gift few other players have and that is the ability to react to how the defence in turn is reacting to the attack.
What teams ask of their 15 is widely reflected in the modern game, the best teams in the world have a fullbacks that incapsulate the team’s identity.
For example consider how Ramos for France is more than just a kicking machine. Not a player blessed with top end speed or goose step to break ankles he instead has an incredible ability to inject himself as a distributor and creative a pivot point when and where he sees fit. It’s been key to releasing Jaliberts pace from 10 in the wider channels throughout this past Six Nations and it’s hard to argue that France haven’t been the most entertaining attacking sides in 2026.
Likewise for New Zealand Will Jordan is about as close to a classic strike running All Black 15 as you’ll see in this modern game. Can he distribute? Yeah, but it’s hard to argue he isn’t at his best when gliding onto the ball in the wide channels or hitting a short line into the seam from deep.
Fassi, Willemse and Moodie’s blistering pace from the back demonstrating South Africa’s willingness to embrace the Tony Brown blueprint in attack as they move on the from the creaking “Pollard – Le Roux” distribution axis.
The list goes on, Capuozzo for Italy, Kinghorn for Scotland. Keenan and Osbourne for Ireland. Even Wales have two outstanding fullbacks in Murray and Rees-Zammit, the latter of who, I think, has been sensational at 15.
All tell you exactly what to expect from the team’s attack all are key attacking weapons.
Then there is England, where you’d be hard pushed to define what they want from their 15.
Part of that is Englands struggle to balance their attacking identity against their defensive one. Instead of doing what England have always excelled at, being a well rounded team that can do a bit of everything, they’ve become the new Jekyll and Hydes of International Rugby. On the one hand bereft of confidence and waiting for the game to end, to all singing all dancing 7 try scoring super attacking automatons the next week.
We’ve seen Les Blues replaced by Les Rosbifs, as the official “which version of the team will turn up?” ambassadors of Rugby.
That indecisiveness in attacking identity has been reflected perfectly with their selections, and it’s left them somewhat adrift of the rest of the pack in terms of re-inventing the fullbacks role in the attack.
In Steward, Smith or Daly. England possess three, completely different players, one solid under the high ball (though Steward is far more than a high ball specialist). One high octane bundle of energy in Smith, no one quite knowing what he’s going to do next and Daly, the old head with a siege gun boot, an eye for the gap and a pass for the ages.
They’ve all featured in this past year and tactical selections will be bandied about, but whatever with horses for courses. It’s not really a thing, often thrown out there to explain contentious selections or where coaches just don’t know what to do in that position.
The truth is most teams don’t have the level of resources to make regular tactical selections on a week by week basis and when you have a coach who has sat his team between a rock and hard place in style of play it becomes even more evident that’s not why these selections have been made.
You also can’t promote continuity and demand cohesion in the one breath and then chop and change the players “because of tactics” in another.
Really it comes down to having an established competent team, if you do then you don’t need to adapt your selection on a game by game basis, the players will adapt as the game unfolds.
A 15 for the modern game.
“From the beginning I could see George was highly skilled and a very good decision maker. You could see a lot of the things he does for the Saints in the Premiership now back then,” – Barry Burgess (Dir of Sport Bedford School and Northampton Saints Academy)
Essentially England are in a weird position where they don’t know what they want from their fullback.
This is indecisive selection policy is evident in their approach to 15.
Smith is a fantastic and exciting player, there is no getting away from that, but there are questions. As a 10 he’s never dominated a game in the same way as say George Ford or Fin Smith have, dropping to third choice 10.
From the bench he is often touted as a utility back game changer but in reality does he? England has an inability to chase down deficits, which may contribute to that perception but can you remember any game where he has changed the game in England’s favour through a moment of brilliance?
Likewise, Steward has added bows to his attacking profile. Injecting himself into the line more and returning the ball with genuine venom.
Daly is a bit more interesting, all of the above but as he loses that half yard of pace, and it happens to us all, he has naturally drifted more towards the distributor role a la Willie Le Roux than the Will Jordan end of the spectrum.
Which brings us neatly to how we can address Englands struggles at 15 and for me the answer is the forgotten fullback of England George Furbank.
Embed from Getty Images
Putting aside the fact he looks like he should be donning a neck scarf, goggles and jumping in his Sopwith Camel, Furbank is an interesting conundrum in the context of England.
Debuting in 2020 at 23 able to play 10 or 15 he was all set to be the central point of Eddie Jones all singing all dancing attacking England, Marcus Smith before Smith was even a thing.
Then he just kind of, but also not really, disappeared.
Injury’s, (broken arm, concussions) have played a significant part in Furbank’s recent absence and by virtue inability to establish himself as the first choice of England but I think in most peoples minds he was the player we were waiting to come back.
Now at full fitness, he’s subsequentley failed break through to the starting 15 in this past 6 Nations.
A decision that is made more questionable by the fact he is once again tearing it up in the Prem and Champions Cup.
At 29, and with 14 caps in 6 years you’d be forgiven in wondering if his chance has passed. However, Englands persistence of using Daly as a back three Mr Fix it at 33 demonstrates age ain’t nothing but a number in the modern game of English Rugby.
His absence is questionable. on paper Furbank is everything these England coaches want, he can cover multiple positions.
Yes, he’s not as solid in the air as Steward, and maybe his hitch kick isn’t as flamboyant at Smiths but he’s a devastating broken field runner, he has an intelligent kicking game and is able to step in as an Aux distributor right across the back line.
He isn’t scared of the physical stuff and with 15 being one of the most difficult areas to make an impact he shows up in defence.
In many ways we saw exactly what he brings to the table in Saints win over Castres Olympique in the Rugby Champions Cup.
Busy throughout the match there were three incidents in which Furbank was central that I think show exactly what England need from their 15 in attack, those are:
- His 50/22 at 41 minutes
- His counter attack for Kemeny’s try at 42 minutes
- His Try at 58 minutes.
The 50/22 is a wonderful demonstration of Furbank’s decision making. On face value it seems such a simple decision. Bad ball, hoof it down field. Easy, no?
But Furbank is aware of where he is on the pitch, of what options that provides and his execution is spot on. Rather than shovelling it on he resets, assesses the situation and turns dodgy ball into a huge positive for Saints.
In his own half he knows that the 50/22 is still on. Slows his run and kicks early.
There is actually space in front of him, and it is so tempting as a 15 to eat that up and try to create something but there are defenders folding on the inside due to the poor passing before this and territory from a static and poor attack is a great outcome, especially if it results in a 50/22.
The kick execution is pure, “Chefs Kiss”.
The long low grubber kick, means he can put power on the kick rather than trying to be delicate, safe in the knowledge it isn’t going straight out. It also makes it extremely difficult for Herve the Castres 10 to claim the ball early with it leaping up right at the most inopportune moment.
The result is said 50/22, and the ensuing line out, despite being lost leads to the Kemeny try (below and also on substack).
So Saints scored a try but context matters and at 41 minutes Northampton are trailing by one point.
Then, in the space of 2 minutes, Furbank gets field position and creates a try for Northampton.
With Saints trailing by a point, 14-15 becomes 21-15.
His next action is putting Freeman away under pressure and then as this topsy turvy game unfolds, and with the opposition again in the ascendancy and pulling back to within 1 point Furbank interjects again scoring a glorious try from a strike move, the score becomes 35 – 27 and Castres dreams are crushed.
A two phase strike move in which he hits a line so sweet, so perfect it will bring tears to any attack coaches eyes.
Castres are reduced to again chasing the score board they never recover to a degree in which they threaten to take the game and Saints gradually build their lead to 42 and then 49 points before the final whistle.
Can Furbank be the Answer?
You want game breakers? Well there you go.
While the perception is a game breaker is a player who has that attacking spark, can make a score happen I’d argue that a genuine game breaker is someone who does the right thing at the right time moment, with little to now panic.
I find Marcus Smith’s continued deployment as a 15/fixer/finisher, whilst not really excelling in either position beginning to look more and more confusing.
If England want game breakers on the bench, well I would posit that Furbank, if he is not to start, offers a far more robust option than Smith.
But in my mind the next step in Englands attacking evolution needs players like Furbank.
That said I’ve never been a person, who likes the idea of whole heartedly picking a teams back line up and dropping it into the national team. The best players should be there, club loyalties taking a back seat, sure there is the cohesion argument but the assumption that because a combination works well at club level it will simply step up to the next level is naive.
But, if England are to persist with Fin Smith at 10, then Furbank makes sense, not because they are club mates, but because they connect well (*Smith was absent in this game) and Furbank can bring the best out of Englands desire to move to the wider channels.
Steward compliments Ford, Furbank like wise Fin Smith (Daly the nearest to Furbank in skills as we saw in the final two rounds of the 6Nations).
With South Africa up next it’s hard to see England deviating again.
Author: The Dead Ball Area
